Guest post by Steven Goddard
The Senate Budget Committee chairman said today :
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said he has spoken to enough colleagues about several different provisions in the budget to make him think Congress won’t pass it. Conrad urged White House budget director Peter Orszag not to “draw lines in the sand” with lawmakers, most notably on Obama’s plan for a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon emissions. “Anybody who thinks it will be easy to get the votes on the budget in the conditions that we face is smoking something,”
So who is Senator Conrad referring to with that last comment?
Orszag acknowledged concerns over the budget and added that the budget plan represents the administration’s “best judgments.“
I wonder if the people in Michigan fighting to keep ice from destroying their houses, are willing to pay extra taxes to fight global warming?
“Despite the Obama administration’s claim that its budget wouldn’t raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year, ‘the budget before us assumes large amounts of money’ from the climate-change legislation, Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said at a hearing Tuesday. ‘And that means higher prices for Americans for food, for gas, for electricity, and in a state like Michigan for home heating – pretty much anything that they buy.'”
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
– Candidate Obama in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle January 17, 2008
I wonder if any of that huge sum might get passed on to people making less than $250,000? What do readers think?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
IEA figures November update.
electricity
Total OECD production reached 814.2 TWh, a decrease of 3.2% or 27.2 TWh over the same month last year.
“- Production from Combustible Fuels declined by 6.7% to 511.1 TWh in OECD, led by a 9.6% and 7.4% decline in OECD Europe and OECD North America respectively.
– Indigenous production declined by 3.2% to 814.2 TWh in OECD mainly due to a 4.6% and a 3.2% decline in OECD Europe and OECD North America respectively.
– Imports and exports declined by 5.3% to 31.8 TWh and 1.1% to 31.9 TWh respectively in OECD.”
[snip, lets stick to cap and trade please – Anthony]
Here is a carbon trading how-to seminar for farmers. Once they get the farmers on board it will be hard to reverse. I liked the part that said that whether or not you believe carbon to be a problem, as long as some people believe it you may as well make money from them.
http://www.idahoworkinglands.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/carbon-education-march-17-with-101-primer.pdf
Kevin B (07:23:22) :
JamesG (07:10:32) :
“There’s a major dilemma with being eco-friendly. Is it better to a) use disposable items or b) use re-washable items. Option a) uses up more precious resources but option b) uses more energy and dumps more detergent in the sea. What to do?”
By the time the greens have finished you will be down to only one option:
“Take your laundry down to the nearest river, soak it, and bash it on the rocks.”
If you get so lucky and your not lynched for exhaling CO2!
Pat (22:25:27) :
[done with these politics] ~ charles the moderator
Michael Ronayne (09:25:27) I agree. If you came of age in the 60s, you may recall an album of non-PC silliness “Waiting for the Electrician or Someone Like Him” by the Firesign Theater, the album has Marx & Lennon, Groucho & John in the cover. It presented a warped history of the US.
More scientific arguments against Cap & Trade:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/climate_change_driven_by_the_ocean_not_human_activity1/
If Cap & Trade wil make it through Congress and Senate, I really can’t say.
It’s a kind of testing the IQ of it’s members.
If Cap & Trade is viable in economic terms, I am not sure either.
Is it bad for the economy in terms of competition and public spending it is very bad.
It’s an economy blocker.
If Cap & Trade is necessary from a scientific point of view, I am very shore.
The answer is NO.
As is every solution that takes care of a non existing problem.
Aron (07:47:46) :
The Guardian has posted its 7th alarmist article of the day.
We all remember the Met Office’s Vicky Pope. Just a couple of weeks ago she warned against alarmist language, but here she is today using it herself
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees
She is saying that 85% of the Amazon is going to disappear because of climate change and that even severe cuts in deforestation and carbon emissions (huh?) will fail to save it. Oh well, that really makes people take action doesn’t it? Of course, it is all theoretical but published as fact.
Brazilians just need to follow the American model of planting more quick growth trees than they use.
And in the future, genetic science will enable the planting of rapid growth trees that could intelligently monitor the atmosphere and automatically take steps to control greenhouse gases to any level we like. As long as Greens don’t get in the way of geneticists the way they have done so far.
Three of my favorites from Aron’s link:
1. “the destruction of large parts of the forest is “irreversible””.
2. “….damage to the forest won’t be obvious straight away, but we could be storing up trouble for the future.”
3. “The study…used computer models to investigate how the Amazon would respond to future temperature rises.”
Raising the temperature 2c in a tropical rain forest will make it stop raining?
Kerry: Climate change delay is ‘suicide pact’
Cap-and-trade with the world economy tanking is arealsuicide pact.
Kerry: Climate change delay is ‘suicide pact’
Cap-and-trade with the world economy tanking is a real suicide pact.
John Kerry says that not doing cap and trade is equivalent to suicide.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5ce05834a0919b70bceb002f810b5e70.fb1&show_article=1
Kerry: Climate change delay is ‘suicide pact’
Mar 11 05:20 PM US/Eastern
A leading US senator warned on Wednesday that deferring potentially costly actions to combat climate change because of the global economic slump amounted to “a mutual suicide pact.”
“Climate change is not governed by a recession, it’s governed by scientific facts about what’s happening to Earth. And you either accept the realities of the science or you don’t,” said Democratic Senator John Kerry.
He spoke after some of his colleagues argued that the United States should not impose a cap-and-trade system for so-called greenhouse gases blamed for global warming because it amounts to a painful tax during a deep downturn.
“You don’t enter a mutual suicide pact because the economy is having a hard time right now,” Kerry said after meeting with UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon seven months before global climate change talks in Denmark’s capital.
$4 gas !
(sorry I’m in the UK)
Every time a politician loses a debate to a Texan simpleton they go on to claim they are versed in advanced sciences that scientists struggle with.
This is what I meant when I said this blog should be taken to the next level. Great job, Steven!
Clearly “cap and trade”, “carbon taxes”, “emissions trading schemes” and the like are certainly grabs for tax revenues, but I don’t see CO2, CC, AGW and “saving the planet” to be (Or rather will be) the main driver. One thing I consider to be a future factor in these “new world order” of tax grabs is demographics. The western world populations are in decline, Italy being a prime example of this right now, more people retired or not working than those working and paying income taxes. It’s obvious to me that “carbon taxes” will be used to bolster Govn’t revenue streams as direct income tax revenue declines in 20-30 years time (Or less).
Neven,
Thank you. Much appreciated.
“Mary Hinge (01:40:02) : ”
The tax on carbon is based on predictions, predictions about where temperatures are going. Temperatures on earth are in a cooling, not a warming trend. There was some “weather” last week that caused some record heat. But Mary, did you hear about the record cold yesterday in the US ans the severe record cold in Canada? I hope you’re not going to be “all quiet now” about that.
I hope you are deeply concerned over carbon tax for a warming world when the world is, in fact, not warming. I also hope you are concerned about raising taxes and increasing regulations in a time of recession. If President Obama isn’t careful his runaway taxing-on-a-bobsled is going to kickstart a depression.
An Inquirer (09:56:58)
said
“Of course, as the index falls, wealth is destroyed which reduces spending which spurs more unemployment — such a vicious cycle!”
Positive feedbacks are very popular in the AGW community.
I think I have figured out the real reason for “Cap and Trade”. Since the financial crisis people won’t be making any money/profits so they won’t be liable for (as much)income tax.
So cap and trade was invented to make up for the expected reduction in the tax take. But now I am thinking conspiracy because people have been talking about cap and trade before the financial crisis began. They must have known it was about to happen.
It’s spooky
Cap and trade would be an inconvenience for the US and a disaster for the third and fourth world. Anything that reduces wealth in the first and second worlds is a horseman of the apocalypse in the third and fourth. Look at the horrible human cost of biofuels. (And anything that reduces wealth directly in the third and fourth worlds is an outright crime against humanity.)
I wonder if Hansen really thinks this is what the government has in mind… if so he is more naive then I gave him credit for..
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf
I quote: “One is Tax & 100% Dividend – tax carbon emissions, but give all of the money back to the public on a per capita basis.
For example, let’s start with a tax large enough to affect purchasing decisions: a carbon tax that adds $1 to the price of a gallon of gas. That’s a carbon price of about $115 per ton of CO2. That tax rate yields $670B per year. We return 100% of that money to the public. Each adult legal resident gets one share, which is $3000 per year, $250 per month deposited in their bank account. Half shares for each child up to a maximum of two children per family. So a tax rate of $115 per ton yields a dividend of
$9000 per year for a family with two children, $750 per month. The family with carbon footprint less than average makes money – their dividend exceeds their tax. This tax gives a strong incentive to replace
inefficient infrastructure. It spurs the economy. It spurs innovation.”
Oy!!! Maybe someone should tell him thats not what the gov has in mind and see if the temps sets stay … cooked:) I personally have not seen the gov ever give money back to the taxpayer willingly… Im sure they have already figured out a way to spend it for us.
pkatt (00:04:12) :
I think he’s saying that’s what the government should have in mind.
On the surface it looks wildly progressive:
A single person drives 50 miles/day * 365 days/per yr. / 35 mpg * $1/gal = $522/year increase in fuel cost.
But that’s not the point. He is on the straight carbon tax side which is refreshing to me and, yes, it is naive to think the government would give back tax money.
Al Gore has suggested replacing income tax with a carbon tax. I like that idea, because it gives people control over their income by the choices they make.
Alan the Brit (01:30:51) :
I see my forecast has been confirmed, the BBC has been issuing Global Warming doom & gloom all week
Not entirely true. Here’s a climate realist piece (ok, in an opinion column, but still…)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7929174.stm
Steven Goddard (06:14:09) :
Al Gore has suggested replacing income tax with a carbon tax. I like that idea, because it gives people control over their income by the choices they make.
And would this be a tax on carbon dioxide emanating products or on the individuals emissions? How would it be implemented without gross invasion of privacy if the latter?
tallbloke,
The point is that it (theoretically) gives people the opportunity to keep more of their money, while making sensible environmental choices.
Hansen is suggesting that the Government have direct access to everyone’s bank account. Now that is scary.